Chevy High Performance
Click here to find out more!

4.3 V6 - turbo or supercharge?

  
Chevy High Performance
1 |  2 |  3 |  Next   | Last 
Item Posts    Sort Order

4.3 V6 - turbo or supercharge?

 
Erik_Snyman Erik_Snyman
New User | Posts: 21 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/27/10
11:53 PM

Hello

I have a 4.3 V6 engine that I used in an experimental aircraft. The heads are iron with an Edelbrock Performer dual-plane intake and a Holley 650 cfm carb. The distributor is a dual firing MSD with two MSD-6A ignition boxes.

The engine performed very well in this configuration in the plane it was in, but I want to now use it in a plane that needs more hp. I am weight-and-space limited, that`s why I want to use the V6 and not a V8.

The real question: I want 300 hp. out of the engine at 4500 rpm. with MINIMAL internal changes. I was thinking of adding an Eaton supercharger and intercooler, and would like to have some info on what pistons to use, how much psi to run, etc.

I have the book "Supercharged" by Corky Bell and like the idea of a blower more than a turbo. Any and all info will be welcomed.

Regards,

Erik in Oz.  

Skylark Skylark
Guru | Posts: 1481 | Joined: 02/10
Posted: 03/28/10
05:16 AM

a supercharger takes Hp to operate(lots really) compared  to a turbo and makes more heat also cannot be controled to make more boost at altitude like a turbo read hugh Mcgenis's book on turbocharging.I have spelled hi name wrong here but that is close  

Dave632 Dave632
Addict | Posts: 2224 | Joined: 07/08
Posted: 03/28/10
03:06 PM

I agree Turbocharging is a better solution. Computer controlled Fuel Injection would be a real help in any Turbo application.  
[[SUPPORT AMERICAN CARS, STOMP A RICE CAR TODAY.]]

blacksheep84 blacksheep84
Enthusiast | Posts: 350 | Joined: 02/09
Posted: 03/28/10
06:10 PM

check out the 4.3's from the turbo syclones witch were 13+ second s-10's out of the factory & compare internals ext.

also buick made many turbo cars in the 80's witch had superior strength and quality , the downside is that some of those engines have to be balanced & rebuilt by a knowledgeable builder.. sometimes local machine shops wont cut it for the special demands of these engines.  

Erik_Snyman Erik_Snyman
New User | Posts: 21 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/28/10
10:12 PM

The reason I am shying away from turbo chargers is the real danger of overspeeding the turbo at altitude, unless I go for a way-oversized turbo. Probably one sized for a 350? Will that work? What size turbo do you guys suggest?

Regards,

Erik in Oz.  

Skylark Skylark
Guru | Posts: 1481 | Joined: 02/10
Posted: 03/29/10
02:46 AM

check the web sites for ....buick grand national.com.....turbobuick.com.....beforeblack.com....they all link together and you could likely even use the automobile computer to control the injection they also discuss turbo upgrades/boost blow off valves ect.the Buick is also a very light weight engine.  

Erik_Snyman Erik_Snyman
New User | Posts: 21 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/29/10
04:21 AM

I already have the Chev engine. I have used it in a plane before and am comfortable with it. I just need more power for the next project it goes into.

Erik in Oz.  

idrivejunk idrivejunk
Addict | Posts: 5117 | Joined: 12/09
Posted: 03/29/10
04:48 AM

Are there any big packaging concerns to consider here? Is the engine compartment tall and skinny or short and wide? Unfortunately I have no experience with forced induction. But I know space is likely to be cramped (hence the V6). Roots type superchargers are available from Blower Drive Services, and a centrifugal type is offered by Vortech, for the 4.3L.

I would think that the most effective, compact, and durable solution would be a centrifugal type supercharger with multiport EFI or a blow-thru carby. I wonder if the ever-popular roots Eaton M90 would suit this application, on a custom intake? It came on 97-03 Pontiac GTPs and many other models. Just tossing ideas out!

Always interesting projects from Oz. Cool  
idrivejunk

Erik_Snyman Erik_Snyman
New User | Posts: 21 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/29/10
07:28 PM

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! The engine compartment is fairly big, but I need to use the engine to balance the centre of gravity, also, the total firewall forward weight is given as max 550 lb. I would love to use a ZZ4 with a reduction drive, but that would be too heavy. I was also thinking about the Eaton M90, but am not sure if I can use it with a carburettor, though. Eatons are very available on e-bay, and relatively cheap. The carb I gave on the 4.3 s a Holley 650 cfm.

Any suggestions as to using an Eaton with a carb?

Thanks for the post.

Erik in Oz.  

idrivejunk idrivejunk
Addict | Posts: 5117 | Joined: 12/09
Posted: 03/29/10
08:16 PM

I don't think the M90 would work with a carb at all  Frown  I thought it might be easy enough to fabricate a lower intake manifold, so I mentioned that one. On second thought, it occurs to me, that blower is designed for engines half a liter smaller, and stopping about 50 HP short of the goal.

I don't think your goal is out of reach with natural aspiration. Check out this interesting article, they hit the 300HP mark when they switched to a 650 carb from a 600. No forced induction drama or expense involved!

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0208_chevy_43l_262ci_v6_engine_build/index.html

I do think that an aircraft powerplant would see many of the same stresses as a boat engine would. You may find some support from the "marine" crowd, as well.
Smile  
idrivejunk

blacksheep84 blacksheep84
Enthusiast | Posts: 350 | Joined: 02/09
Posted: 03/29/10
10:57 PM

the buick turbo v6 engines have the capability to make 600lb of torque under 3,000 or 2,500 rpms i think it is. that's on a 3.8 liter engine

your goal is not so hard.  

Erik_Snyman Erik_Snyman
New User | Posts: 21 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/30/10
03:04 AM

As I said in an earlier post, I don`t think it will be difficult, either. I just need someone to tell me what to do to get there. Naturally aspirated I don`t think I will get 300 hp. at 4500 rpm. At altitude it will be even less.

Erik in Oz.  

redneckjoe69 redneckjoe69
Addict | Posts: 2337 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/30/10
04:57 AM

being " weight-and-space limited", i was wondering if maybe a high performance streetbike engine would be better suited. turbo hyabusa motors easily make 300 horse, have computer control, dont redline til about 10,000rpm or above, and are fairly light compared to a v-6.  theyre also relatively small. im not sure about torque.  just think, when your screaming at redline...you could shift to the next gear.     i know this isnt what you asked, i guess i was curious if this would work. i love my chevys. but wouldnt this be more efficient? especially for weight and space limitations?     by the way, i know nothing about airplanes!  

idrivejunk idrivejunk
Addict | Posts: 5117 | Joined: 12/09
Posted: 03/30/10
04:59 AM

Did you see the article I linked you to? It tells you exactly how to get 300 HP from a 4.3, with room for improvement. Maybe you missed the link in my previous post.

Here is their highest dyno number: 5,500 RPM, 301.2 HP, 287.7 TORQUE

I already listed manufacturers who produce turbos and huffers. The horse is standing next to the pond, but thats as far as I can take it... I know little of the effects of altitude.

The engine gurus aren't speaking up on this one. Maybe an S-10 forum would have more V6 action. The Chevy Hi-Po guys have little appreciation for anything non-V8 Grin  
idrivejunk

Erik_Snyman Erik_Snyman
New User | Posts: 21 | Joined: 03/10
Posted: 03/31/10
01:05 AM

I saw the likn, thanks, and read it a couple of times. I prefer to get the desired hp at a lower rpm, as prop tip speed also enters the equation. The reduction drive has a ratio of 1.7:1, which, at 5500 rpm, gives a propellor speed of 3235 rpm, too high for a 72 inch prop.

I also hoped that the engine gurus would have chimed in. Alas, as you say, it does not say "350ci V8"

Regards,

Erik in OZ.  

1 |  2 |  3 |  Next   | Last